Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar 16:5:361.
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8145.1. eCollection 2016.

Promoting development and uptake of health innovations: The Nose to Tail Tool

Affiliations

Promoting development and uptake of health innovations: The Nose to Tail Tool

Archna Gupta et al. F1000Res. .

Abstract

Introduction Health sector management is increasingly complex as new health technologies, treatments, and innovative service delivery strategies are developed. Many of these innovations are implemented prematurely, or fail to be implemented at scale, resulting in substantial wasted resources. Methods A scoping review was conducted to identify articles that described the scale up process conceptually or that described an instance in which a healthcare innovation was scaled up. We define scale up as the expansion and extension of delivery or access to an innovation for all end users in a jurisdiction who will benefit from it. Results Sixty nine articles were eligible for review. Frequently described stages in the innovation process and contextual issues that influence progress through each stage were mapped. 16 stages were identified: 12 deliberation and 4 action stages. Included papers suggest that innovations progress through stages of maturity and the uptake of innovation depends on the innovation aligning with the interests of 3 critical stakeholder groups (innovators, end users and the decision makers) and is also influenced by 3 broader contexts (social and physical environment, the health system, and the regulatory, political and economic environment). The 16 stages form the rows of the Nose to Tail Tool (NTT) grid and the 6 contingency factors form columns. The resulting stage-by-issue grid consists of 72 cells, each populated with cell-specific questions, prompts and considerations from the reviewed literature. Conclusion We offer a tool that helps stakeholders identify the stage of maturity of their innovation, helps facilitate deliberative discussions on the key considerations for each major stakeholder group and the major contextual barriers that the innovation faces. We believe the NTT will help to identify potential problems that the innovation will face and facilitates early modification, before large investments are made in a potentially flawed solution.

Keywords: Health innovation; decision makers; end users; implementation; pilot test; researchers; scale up; stakeholders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Image of the NTT Grid.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Example of the types of questions asked at stage 6 ( decide to implement) to help users of the NTT determine if they are at this stage.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Example of the types of questions the NTT asks decision makers to consider at stage 6 ( decide to implement).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. National Institute of Health: Clinical and translational science.2014. Reference Source
    1. Edwards N: Scaling-up health innovations and interventions in public health: A brief review of the current state-of-the-science.2014;1–45. Reference Source
    1. Colquhoun H, Leeman J, Michie S, et al. : Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. Implement Sci. 2014;9:51. 10.1186/1748-5908-9-51 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, et al. : Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–350. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Flottorp S: The OFF theory of research utilization. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(2):113–116; discussion 117–20. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.002 - DOI - PubMed